S/PV.114 Security Council

Before calling upon the three members of the Council who have asked to speak, I should like to clarify one point in order to avoid any subsequent confusion. I did not refer to the distinction between questions of procedure and questions of substance. I merely said that the establishment of a sub-committee such as that proposed by the Australian delegation was not one of the decisions mentioned in Chapter VI of the Charter. Mr. ZULETA ANGEL (Colombia) (translated from French): I apologize, Mr. President, for speaking for a second time at a moment when we have reached the somewhat explosive situation, characteristic of all questions relating to the veto. In order to support Mr. Hasluck's proposal, I should like to reiterate a point which I made just now, because I think it may clarify the particular situation with which we are faced, by showing that we are indeed confronted with a question of procedure and 110t with a decision of the kind referred to in Chapter VI of the Oharter. I said just now that Mr. Hasluck's proposal was not incompatible with any of those proposals which have been submitted before or with any of those which might be made later, with a view moins, je n'ai pas l'intention d'emettre un vote negatif meme si l'on pose la question de la fac;on suivante: la question qui nous occupe est-eUe ou non une question de procedure? Je ne veux pas, en dIet, faire obstacle a la creation d'une souscommission. Si la majorite des membres du Consei1 de securite jugent necessaire de prendre la decision de proceder a un complement d'enquete, ils sont libres de le faire. Mais je n'ai pas l'intention de voter contre la motion si la question posee est celle de savoir s'il s'agit d'une question de procedure ou non, s'il s'agit d'une decision sur une question de procedure ou non. J'attire votre attention sur le fait que, du point de vue des principes, cette decision ne releve evidenunent pas du domaine de la procedure. Si je ne demande pas moi-meme que nous decidions tout d'abord si la decision a prendre est ou non une decision de procedure, c'est uniquement parce que je ne veux pas voter contre l'affirmation selon laquelle cette decision ne serait pas une question de procedure. C'est seulement pour cette raison que je m'abstiens de poser cette question. Mais je n'ai pas le moindre doute que, d'apres la Charte et les principes qui sont ala base de la declaration de San-Francisco et, qui plus est, du precedent etabli lors de la constitution de la Commission balkanique, cette decision n'est evidemment pas une decision de procedure. Le PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole aux trois membres du Conseil qui 1'0nt demandee, je voudrais apporter une precision afin d'eviter toute confusion ulterieure. J e ne me suis pas refcre ala distinction entre les questions de procedure et les questions de fond. J'ai simplement dit que la constitution d'une sous-commission comme celle qu'a proposee la delegation australienne ne figurait pas parmi les decisions mentionnees au Chapitre VI dela Charte. M. ZULETA ANGEL (Colombie): Je vous prie d'excuser, Monsieur le President, cette seconde intervention, a un moment OU la question presente le caractere quelque peu explosif qu'ont toutes les questions se rattachant au veto. Je voudrais reprendre, pour appuyer la proposition de M. Hasluck., une consideration que j'ai exprimee tout a l'heure, parce qu'elle peut, amon avis, apporter une certaine clarte sur la situation precise ou nous nous trouvons, en montrant que nous sommes vraiment devant une question de procedure et non devant une decision ~e l'ordre de celles qui sont envisagees au Chapitre VI de la Charte. J'ai dit tout a I'heure que la proposition de M. Hasluck n'est incompatible avec aucune de celles qui ont ete presentees jusqu'ici et quJelle ne peut l'etre non plus avec aucune de cenes qui The problem before us is as follows: can the decision proposed by the representative of Australia be taken by the Council as a decision under Chapter VI of the Charter? I do not think that it can; the decision which we shall take under this Chapter will be the subsequent one, taken after our consideration of the report of the sub-committee proposed by the Australian representative. I consider that the reason why there is no incompatibility between the resolution proposed by Mr. Hasluck and our subsequent decision is . that we are not now faced with a decision "under Chapter VI of the Charter". For lack of a more precise term, I used the word "investigation" just now to indicate that the resolution of the Australian representative provided for a kind of investigation. I had no intention of saying that this would be an investigation in the sense of Article 34 of the Charter. Indeed, Article 34 uses the word "investigation" in a much more restricted and technical sense. The Article reads as follows: "The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security." The study which we shall undertake in accordance with Mr. Hasluck's proposal is not the technical investigation mentioned in Article 34 of the Charter. I think that if we set aside for the moment all discussion of the delicate point of determining which are questions of procedure, and if we confine ourselves to agreeing that we are not confronted with a decision under Chapter VI, but with a preliminary question, to assist us in the decision which we shall have to take under this Chapter VI, the matter will become easier to understand, and we shall be in a position to decide whether, in these circumstances, the representative of the United Kingdom is entitled to take part in the vote. The P:RESIDENT (translated from French): Although I am a newcomer to the Security Council, I know that the Council has already devoted many hours to discussions such as the one in which we are now engaged. I hope, therefore, that when the representatives of Syria and the United States have spoken, we shall be able to consider the incident as closed. Mr. EL-KHouRI (Syria): I consider that the question before us is whether Sir Alexander Cadogan is to abstain from voting on this matter. .That was the principal question which was put quete aux termes de l'Article 34 de la Charte. En dIet, l'Article 34 parle d'enquete dans un sens beaucoup plus restreint et technique. 11 se lit ainsi: "Le Conseil de se~urite peut enqueter sur tout differend ou toute situation qui POUITai~ entralner un desaccord entre nations ou engendrer un differend, afin de determiner si la prolongation de cc differend ou de cette situation semble devoir menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales." L'examen auquel nous allons proceder, selon la proposition de M. Hasluck, n'est pas l'etude technique dont parle l'Article 34 de la Charte. ]e crois que si nous ecartons, pour le moment, toute discussion sur le point delicat de savoir queUes sont les questions de procedure, et nous bornons a considerer que nous ne sommes pas en presence d'une decision aux termes du Chapitre VI, mais d'une question prealable, afin de nous eclairer sur la decision que nous devrons prendre aux termes de ce Chapitre VI, la question deviendra plus facile et nous serollS en mesure de determiner si, dans ce cas, le representant du Royaume-Uni est habilite a prendre part au vote. Le PRESIDENT: Bien que je sois une nouvelle recrue parmi les membres du Conseil, je crois savoir que celui-ci a deja consacre de nombreuses heures ades discussions semblables acelle qui vient de s'engager. Aussi, j'espere que lorsque les representants de la Syrie et des Etats-Unis auront parIe, nous pourrons considerer l'incident comme clos. M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglais) : J'estime que la question qui nous est posee en ce moment est de decider si Sir Alexander Cadogan doit s'abstenir de 'prendre part au vote dans cette in Article 34 refers to more senous SItuatIOns than the one on which the present proposal bears. Whether the decision to begin an investigation can be classified as a decision in which the parties to the dispute shall abstain from voting, is decided by the purpose for which the investigation is instituted. In other words, to come within the provisions of Article 34, an investigation must be aimed at discovering whether the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. I think the proposal of the Australian delegation for the formation of the sub-committee was not directed towards this end. The proposed sub-committee will not be created in order to find out whether the existing situation between these two States in question would be likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, but simply to clarify certain ambiguities in the statements which we have heard from both parties. For this reason, I consider that the parties to this dispute are not obliged to abstain from voting under Chapter VI of the Charter. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): The representative of the Soviet Union made reference to the stipulations of the four Power statement at San Francisco. As he knows, and as the Council knows, the attitude of the United States with regard to the obligations or stipulations of that statement is substantially the same as that of the Soviet Union. I would have no dispute with Mr. Gromyko regarding the understanding which was reached on voting procedure at San Francisco, with respect to the permanent members of the Council. I cannot agree, however, that the case which we now have before us falls under the terms of that statement. Clearly the Council itself can, as a matter of procedure, make enquiries about any question, and it follows that it can authorize a sub-committee of its own creation, drawn from its own members, to do the same thing if it finds that that is a convenient method of conducting its business. I must join issue with the representative of the Soviet Union when he compares the subcommittee proposed by the representative of Australia to the Commission set up by the M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de l'Union sovietique a fait allusion a la declaration des quatre Puissances de San-Francisco. Comme il le sait, et comme le Conseil le sait egalement, l'attitude des Etats-Unis en cc qui concerne les obligations ou Ies stipulations de cette declaration est sensiblement la meme que celle de l'Union sovietique. Je n'entamerai aucune discussion avec M. Gromyko sur l'accord qui a ete realise a San-Francisco sur la maniere de voter des membres permanents du Conseil. Je ne peux pas admettre cependant que Ies termes de cette declaration puissent s'appliquer au cas que nous examinons actuellement. Il est evident que, pour des raisons de pure procedure, le Conseil lui-meme peut proceder a des enquetes sur n'importe que! sujet. 11 s'ensuit qu'il peut autoriser une sous-commission creee par lui et composee de membres du Conseil a faire la meme chose s'il estime que c'est la une bonne methode de travail. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec le representant de I'Union sovietique quand il compare la sous-commission proposee par le representant de I'Australie ala Commission que Needless to say, when the sub-committee has made its report and the Council hM before it a substantial paper on which it may take action, then the question of whether the vote is procedural or one of substance, will be entirely different. It will be a vote of substance. But in my opinion the mere setting up of a sub-committee of the Council, composed of Council members, to venture an analysis and undertake the task of drafting for the benefit of the Council and to facilitate its work, can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a matter of substance. Mr. HASLUCI< (Australia): Mr. President, I do not want to comment in any way on the matter before us, but I should like to place on record that the description you have given in your ruling of the nature of the Australian resolution agrees completely with the view that the Australian delegation itself held when drafting the resolution. I should also like to take this opportunity for expressing appreciation of the indication which has been given to us by the representative of the Soviet Union, that, while he holds to his own interpretation of the Charter and the four Power statement, he is willing to facilitate the taking of action if the majority of the Council wishes to adopt the Australian resolution. In expressing that appreciation, of course I will not be expected, by my Soviet colleague, to share his interpretation nor do I think it is opportune to advance our own interpretation, which is quite well known to the Council. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : Mr. President, I apologize for having raised a point which has caused the Security Council some trouble, but perhaps it is just as well I did so. Do you remember that I asked you if I might raise another point before you actually proceeded to the vote? I do not think it will cause so much . trouble. At our last sitting on this question, you asked us to confine ourselves to the Australian proposal setting up this sub-committee, and therefore, in the few remarks that I have made on that proposal, I have kept to your ruling. I think you said at the time that, even if the Australian resolution were carried, the general discussion would not thereby be closed. tache, ne peut, a man avis, quelque effort d'imagination que l'on fasse, etre considere comme une question de fond. M. HASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Je ne veux faire aucun commentaire sur la question que nous examinons, mais je voudrais demander que l'on mentionne au procesverbal que l'explication que vous avez donnee de la nature de la resolution australienne est absolumellt conforme avec l'opinion qu'avait la. delegation australienne eIle-meme, quand eIle a rCdige sa resolution. Je voudrais egalement exprimer notre satisfaction de yoir que le representant de I'Union sovietique, tout en s'en tenant asa propre interpretation de la Charte et de la declaration des quatre Puissances, se declare pret a faciliter l'execution de la decision si la majorite du Conseil desire adopter la resolution de la delegation australienne. Que mon collegue sovietique ne s'attende evidemment pas a me voir, de ce fait, partager son interpretation. le ne juge pas non plus opportun d'exposer notre propre interpretation, qui est bien connue du Consei!. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, je m'excuse d'avoir souleve un point qui a cause quelques difficultes au Conseil de securite, mais peut-etre cela vaut-il mieux ainsi. Vous vous souvenez sans doute que je vous ai demande la permission de soulever un autre point avant de passeI' au vote proprement dit. Je ne pense pas que ce deuxieme point entralne autant de difficultes. Au cours de notre dernU:re seance sur cette question, vous nous avez demande de limiter nos interventions a la proposition de la delegation australienne tendant a instituer une sous-commission. Au cours des quelques observations que j'ai presentees sur cette proposition, je me suis donc conforffi(~ avotre decision. le crois que vous avez dit a ce moment que, meme si la resolution de l'Australie etait adoptee, la discussion generale ne serait pas close.. But what we are following now is a rather half-and-half procedure. There have been a lot of statements made at this Council table to which I should find it very difficult not to reply here. I think my reply might perhaps help the subcommittee. Therefore, I wish to ask you, Mr. President, if you would agree to allow me, after the vote, to make a further contribution to the general discussion, in reply to some of the things which have been said here? The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I repeat that the vote which we are about to take, whatever its results may be, will not involve closing the discussion. I shall therefore willingly call upon the representative of the United Kingdom, if he wishes to speak. If, however, the subcommittee proposed by the Australian delegation is established, I would ask members of the Council who wish to speak in the debate to bear this new fact in mind as far as possible. We will put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by the Australian delegation, with the following amendment: in the second paragraph, "3 March" will be replaced by "10 March 1947". A vote was then taken by show of hands and the Australian resolution! was adopted by eight voles, with three abstentions. Votes for: Australia Belgium Brazil China Colombia France United Kingdom United States of America Abstentions: Poland Syria Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

We must now appoint this Sub-Committee of three members: I think that the Chair of this Sub-Committee should automatically be taken by the representative of Brazil, who the day after tomorrow will become the PreRident of the Security Council for the month of March. I therefore propose that he should take the Chair and that the future chairman be invited to appoint the two members who will assist him. 1 Resolution tendant ~ constituer une sous-commission de trois membres. Voir Pfoc~s-vefbauxofficiels du COl/seiJ de securite, Deuxieme Annee, No 18, page 118. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I think that the considerations invoked by the representative of Brazil are worthy of attention. Hitherto it has not been the practice of the Security Council to request any single person to settle the question of the composition of a committee. I should not like such a procedure to be introduced into the Security Council in the future. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): J'estime que les remarques que vient de presenter le representant du Bresil meritent notre attention. Jusqu'a present, il n'etait pas dans les usages du Conseil de securite de charger un seul de ses membres de determiner la composition d'une commission. Je voudrais bien qu'a l'avenir une pareille methode ne soit pas suivie par le Conseil de securite. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): Mr. President, I can appreciate the statement made by the representative of the Soviet Union, which I think possibly touches on your own difficulty in naming the members of the Sub-Committee. If I should venture to make a suggestion, I should like it to be clearly understood that the Australian delegation is neither trying to usurp the functions of the President, nor is it trying to appoint this Sub- Committee. But in the course of my statement advocating the appointment of the Sub-Committee I suggested that its appointment might take into consideration nations which were rather re- M. HASLUCK (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): Monsieur le President, je comprends fort bien le point de vue du representant de l'Union sovietique qui a trait peut-etre ala difficulte que vous eprouvez vous-meme a nommer les membres de la Sous-Commission. Si vous me permettez de presenter une suggestion, je souhaiterais qu'il soit nettement entendu que la delegadon de l'Australie n'essaie ni d'usurper les fonctions du President, ni de nommer les membres de la Sous- Commission; mais, au cours de l'expose que j'ai fait en faveur de la creation de la Sous-Commission, j'ai suggere que, pour constituer cette Sous- Commission, on pourrait choisir des pays assez eloignes des lieux memes du differend. Si vous me le permettez, je ferai donc la suggestion suivante. I1 me semble, par exemple, que des pays comme la Chine, ou peut-etre la Colombie ou la Syrie - j'insiste sur le fait que je ne cite ces pays qu'a titre d'exemple - seraient certainement, s'ils etaient designes, des pays eloignes du lieu du differend, et n'ayant, par suite, pris aucune part active au fond de l'affaire; ceIa garantirait, a mon avis, l'objectivite et le desinteressement qui sont indispensables pour remplir cette tache particuliere. Je desire preciser tres nettement que l'Australie, pour sa part, ne desire pas du tout siegeI' a la Sous-Commission et ne desire pas etre proposee pour y sit~ger, bien qu'on puisse penser qu'il s'agit d'une question a laquelle mon pays s'interesse tout particulierement. Je repete que je n'ai cite ces trois pays qu'a titre d'exemple, et je presente aux representants des autres pays les excuses qui leur sont dues a cet egard. mote from the actual scene of the dispute. If I may, I would put forward the following suggestion, by way of illustration. It would seem to me that countries such as China, or Colombia, and perhaps Syria-and I stress that I am doing this by way of illustration-if named, would certainly be countries remote from this particular issue and which have not taken any active part in the merits of the case, and would thus, I think, ensure that objectivity, that aloofness which is required for this particular task. I should like to make it quite clear that, so far as Australia is concerned, we have no ambition to serve on the Sub-Committee, nor do we wish to be considered for it, although it might be thought that this is a subject in which we have particular interest. In mentioning the three names, I repeat I use them by way of illustration and with due apologies to the representatives of the other countries. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I think it would be too mechanical an approach to the solution of this question, if we based ourselves only on the geographical principle. I consider that the composition of the Sub-Committee sug- M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Il me semble que nous aborderions le probleme d'une maniere trop mecanique si nous partions seulement d'un principe de repartition geographique. J'estime que la composition de la Sous-Commission, telle qu'elle a ete proposee par le representant de l'Australie, ne convient pas tout a fait. Je crois qu'il serait approprie de ne pas designer, comme membres de la Sous-Commission, des rege~ted by the representative of Australia is not . qUIte appropriate. I think it would be expedient not to include the representatives of the Great Powers, the permanent members of the Security I think the procedure to be followed should be to ask the President to name the Sub-Committee, appointing such members as he, in his best judgment, thinks fit. I think, Mr. President, you need not leave it to your successor, because you are still the President and I am sure the Council will have full confidence in your wise choice. I should like to repeat that China would not like to be included in the list of members on this Sub-Committee. Mr. HAS LUCK (Australia): Mr. President, I should like to make it quite clear that our delegation is not presenting candidates in any way. We mentioned names by way of illustration. We have complete confidence in your judgment and are quite prepared to leave the matter to you. We regard that as both the usual and the satisfactory procedure in forming a sub-committee.

I appreciate very much the confidence in me expressed by the representatives of China and Australia. I made a proposal just now which unfortunately did not seem to be acceptable. The representative of Australia has proposed three names: those of China, Colombia and Syria. Mr. Gromyko also proposed three names: those of Brazil, Poland and Syria. The latter country has been proposed on both lists. Objections were raised to the nomination of China, Tout a l'heure, j'ai fait une proposition qui n'a malheureusement pas paru acceptable. Le representant de l'Australie nous a propose trois noms: ceux de la Chine,de la Colombie et de la Syrie. De son cote, M. Gromyko a cite trois noms: ceux du Bresil, de la Pologne et de la Syrie. Ce demier pays nous est propose sur les deux listes. La nomination de la Chine, en tant Mr. ARANHA (Brazil): I shall bow to your decision, but I am convinced that the members of the Council wish to retain you as President for as long as possible. I would suggest to the Council that the chairman of this Sub-Committee be yourself. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I should like to thank the'representative of Brazil for what he has said. I share his views with regard to the chairmanship of the new Sub- Committee. Mr. GltOMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): When I mentioned Brazil, Poland and Syria, I had in mind that the representative of Australia also suggested Brazil as a member of the Sub-Committee, and did not merely propose that the representative of Brazil, as being the future Chairman, should be entrusted with settling the composition of the Sub-Committee. That is the reason why I mentioned Brazil, Poland and Syria. I agree to replace Brazil by Colombia; I consider this alternative equally acceptable. With regard to the question of establishing a precedent to which the representative of China has referred, I preclude such a possibility, if only because I have pointed out that one of the possibilities is to form the Sub-Committee consisting of the representatives of countries which are not permanent members of the Council. We can also decide on another alternative, that is to say, to include the representatives of countries which are permanent members of the Council. I have no objection to this either. I would emphasize that this is only one of the possibilities. With regard to the remark of the United States representative concerning Poland, I consider this remark unconvincing and groundless. It sounded rather facetious. We are dealing with a serious matter, and there is no occasion for witticisms. We must approach this question seriously and objectively. If we are to settle the problem of tlle composition of the Sub-Committee, we must settle this problem correctly and objectively in order that the composition should be equitable, and we should not indulge in wordplay, however well it may sound and though it may even perhaps be capable of amusing somebody. The Polish representative expressed the view that it was not necessary to establish a sub-committee, but this does not mean that· Poland will not work on the Sub-Committee together with other countries represented on it. Since the Polish representative has not stated specifically that he does not wish to participate in the work of the M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Quand j'ai mentionne le Bresil, la Pologne et la Syrie, je pensais que le representant de l'Australie proposait egalement l'inclusion du Bresil dans la Sous-Commission et ne se bornait pas acharger le representant du Bresil, en sa qualite de futur President, de designer les membres de la Sous- Commission. C'est justement pour cela que j'ai nomme le Bresil, la Pologne et la Syrie. Je suis d'accord pour que la Colombie remplace le Bresil; cette solution me parrot tout aussi bonne. Quant acreer un precedent, comme l'a dit id le representant de la Chine, j'en exclus la possibilite, ne serait-ce que parce que j'ai indique que l'une des possibilites consistait a composer cette Sous-Commission de representants de pays qui ne sont pas membres permanents du Conseil. Nous pouvons egalement decider d'adopter une autre solution qui consiste a faire appel a des representants de pays qui sont membres permanents du Conseil; je ne m'y oppose pas davantage. Je souligne que ce n'est la qu'une possibilite parmi d'autres. Quant a la remarque que le representant des Etats-Unis a faite au sujet de la Pologne, j'estime qu'elle n'est ni convaincante ni fondee. Elle a fait plutot l'effet d'une facetie. Nous traitons ici de questions serieuses et il n'y a pas lieu de plaisanter. Nous devons aborder cette question avec le serieux et l'objectivite necessaires. Si nous veu- Ions designer les membres de la Sous-Commission, nous devons proceder d'une maniere juste et objective pour arriver a une composition equitable et non pas faire des jeux de mots, meme si ceux-ci sonnent bien et peuvent meme faire rire certaines personnes. Le representant de la Pologne a estime qu'il n'etait pas necessaire de Creel' une sous-commission. Cela ne veut pas dire que la Pologne ne travaillera pas au sein de cette Sous-Commission avec les autres pays qui y seront representes. Puisque le representant de la Pologne n'a pas expressement declare qu'il ne desire pas prendre Mr. MWHALOWSKI (Poland): I should like only to answer in a few words the representative of the United States. It is true that I declared that I did not believe that the work of the Sub- Committee would be fruitful. Nevertheless, if the opinion of the majority of this Council is different, I am ready to collaborate with this Sub- Committee. It seems to me that that is one of the principles of democracy. It does not mean that it is my wish to work in this Sub-Committee, but I object to any such principle as that according to which only those members who are in the majority may work in the sub-committees of this Council. Mr. ]OHNSON (United States of America): I do not object to the representative of Poland being on this Sub-Committee because he is in the minority in this question. I object to his being on the Sub-Committee because he has expressed the opinion that it would be impossible to find any further evidence in New York on this subject and that within a week we should be exactly where we are now. I do not think that that is exactly the point of view from which a working member of the Sub-Committee should approach the task with which he has been entrusted. I think we should spare the representative of Poland that trial, and put someone on the Sub- Committee who has hope of a possible successful conclusion of the matter. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I should like to sum up. A list was proposed to us by the representative of the USSR consisting of Brazil, Poland and Syria. He then proposed that Brazil should be replaced by Colombia. At that point, therefore, the list consisted of Colombia, Poland and Syria. Then I myself proposed Brazil, Colombia and Syria. The representative of Brazil withdrew and suggested that I should take his place. I should like to know if there are any other proposals, in order that I may consult the Council and ask it to take a decision. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I propose that the Sub-Committee be composed of the representatives of Australia, Colombia, and Poland. The representative of Australia made the proposal and he has many questions and points to investigate and to clarify, such as the ambiguities in the previous statements. He would certainly be most useful for the work. de la Pologne et nommer ala Sous-Conunission un membre qui ait l'espoir d'aboutir a une conclusion heureuse. Le PRESIDENT: Je voudrais faire le point. Une liste nous a ete proposee par le representant de l'URSS. Elle comprenait le Bresil, la Pologne et la Syrie. Ensuite, le representant de 1"DRSS a propose de remplacer le Bresil par la ColoInbie. La liste comprenait done a ce m.oment 1a Colombie, la Pologne et la Syrie. Puis j"ai moimeme propose le Bresil, la Colombie et la Svric. Le representant du Bresil s'est recuse et il a bien voulu citer mon nom ala place du sien. J e voudrais savoir s'il y a d'autres propositions. de fa~on que je puisse consulter le Conseil et lui demander de prendre une decision. M. EL-KHOURI (Syric) (traduit de l~ anglais) : Je propose que la Sous-Commission cOHlcprenrle les representants de l'Australie, de la COlolllbie et de la Pologne. Le representant de 1"Australie a presente la proposition en question, et il a de nombreuses questions et de nombreux point."l it examiner et a eclaircir, par exemple les alUbiguites contenues dans des declarations ant.erieures. Il rendra certainement de grands services At the same time, however, I have some qUf;stions and I would be ready to serve on the Sub- Committee and submit the questions which I have and the remarks which I have to make. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): While appreciating the honour that the representative of Syria would show to our delegation, I should like to stand by the principle which I tried to present earlier, namely, that no member of this Council who has actively taken part in this question, or De mon cote, cependant, j'aurais qUelqu~ questions a poser et je serais dispose a faire partie de la Sous-Commission et a soUrnettre un certain nombre de questions et d'observation.s. M. HASLUCK (Australie) (tradui~ de l"anglais): Tout en appreciant l'honneur que le representant de la Syrie desire rendre a. nol.re delegation, je souhaite m'en tenir aux prindpes que je me suis efforce d'exposer precede~nlent asavoir qu'aucun des membres du Conseil qui ~ On past occasions our delegation has hadparticularly, if I may mention it, in the investigation of the Spanish question-reason to appreciate the very great contributions that the Polish delegation can make to the work of this Oouncil, so I am sure that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that in this particular case, I do not think that either the Polish or the Australian delegation might be considered to have the degree of aloofness necessary for this particular type of job. As to the selection of the members of the Sub- Oommittee, I think that the smoothest procedure and, I think, the normal procedure-the procedure which has been followed previouslyis for the President himself to take the responsibility of naming the three members. As far as our delegation is concerned, whatever the names are, we are prepared to accept them, and I feel confident that the majority of the members of the Council will also be prepared to stand by the three names the President in his own wisdom may choose to announce. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Hitherto in forming committees or sub-committees the usual procedure has been that they should consist of those representatives who took the most active part in the discussion of the question or who submitted relevant proposals. The representative of Australia has just put forward arguments of altogether a different kind. I do not think they are convincing. We are not electing an arbitration board to make a final decision, but a subcommittee to undertake the supplementary study of certain facts. It seems to me that the theory that the Sub-Oommittee should not include the representatives of those countries which have displayed an interest in the question during the discussion and have expressed definite opinions, is unsatisfactory and inapplicable in this case. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, the representative of Australia said that he did not touch· on the substance of the question in his statement but only spoke of procedure. This is in contradiction with his last statement. I say this in order to emphasize that I do not object to the membership proposed by the representative of Syria. Personally, I am prepared to support this alternative, also.

The Australian representative said a few moments ago that he thought the Oouncil would support the nominations that I might make as President of the Oouncil. Accordingly, I propose Australia, Colombia, and Poland as members of the Sub-Oommittee. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe'): Jusqu'a present, lorsqu'il s'agissait de Creel' une commission ou une sous-commission, nous avions.l'habitude de designer les representants qui avaient participe aux debats de la fa<;on la plus active ou qui avaient formule des propositions relatives a l'objet de la discussion. Le representant de l'Australie vient de faire valoir des considerations d'un ordre tout afait different. J'estime que ses arguments ne sont pas convaincants. Il ne s'ag-it pas de desiRIler des arbitres charges de prononcer une sentence definitive, maillles membres d'une sous-commission qui doit proceder a un supplement d'enquete sur certains faits. A mon avis, la theorie seIon laquelle les representants des pays qui ont manifeste de l'interet pour cette Question au cours de la discussion et qui ont exprime certaines opinions ne devraient pas faire partie de la Sous-Commi~sion, n'est pas satisfaisante et ne saurait s'appliquer au cas present. D'ailleurs, si ie ne me trotnpe, le representant de l'Australie a dit que son intervention ne concernait pas le fond de la question. mais seulement la procedure. Ce1a contredit sa derni~re declaration. .Te dis tout ce1a' pour wuligner queie n'ai aucune ohiection mntre la composition de la Sous-Commission trUe que la propose le representant de la Syrie. Prrnonnellement, .ie suis aussi dispose aappuyer cette formule. Le PRESIDENT: Le representant de l'Allstralie a dit tout a l'heure que le Oonseil se rallierait a toute proposition soumise par la presidence. Dans ces conditions, ie sUg'gere que l'Austmlie, la Colomhie et la Pologne fassent partie de la SOllS- Oommission. United States of America Abstentions: Australia Colombia Poland

The Sub-Committee will thus consist of Australia, Colombia and Poland. This proposal has received seven votes in favour, one dissident vote and three abstentions.. Sir Alexander CAnOGAN (United Kingdom) : I did not vote, Mr. President, because I considered that I should not. I think I had the right, but as the other party to the dispute does not have a vote in this matter of settling the composition of the Sub-Committee which is to examine the case, I thought it would be right that I should not vote. .I think it might be useful for me to point out, and perhaps useful for the Sub-Committee that has just been appointed, that in the course of the discussion in the Security Council, this case has been considerably obscured by the introduction of what I think are irrelevant issues. Let me just remind the Security Council what our charge against the Albanian Government is. It is that a recently laid, moored mine-field has been found in Albanian territorial waters extending to within 300 yards of the shore. In spite of statements made by two representatives that mines immersed for a considerable time in sea water retain their pristine freshness, our evidence on the point of the newness of the mines is irrefutable. We know something about mines. I have ascertained that since the end of the war, British authorities have swept up about twenty thousand mines of different vintages. In any case, I suppose every schoolboy knows that metal objects immersed in sea water do get coated at a regular rate with marine growth. It is quite easy to estimate approximately the period of immersion. I claim to be able to prove that: • 1. The mine-field was laid, at the very most, six months before the incidents took place. 2. The mine-field was never declared or reported. No one has challenged that statement and no one can, because no notification or warning has been issued. That is admitted. Le PRESIDENT: La Sous-Commission sera done composee de l'Australie, de la Colombie et de la Po10gne. Cette proposition a recueilli sept voix avec une voix dissidente et trois abstentions. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit de l)anglais): Je n'ai pas pris part au vote, Monsieur le President, parce que j'ai pense que je ne devais pas le faire. J'estime que j'en avais le droit; mais, comme l'autre partie au differend n'a pas le droit de voter en ce qui concerne la composition de la Sous-Conunission qui examinera l'affaire, il m'a semble qu'il serait juste que je ne votasse point. J'estime qu'il serait p~ut-etre utile, et pour moi et pour la Sous-Commission qui vient d'etre constituee, de faire observer qu'au cours de la discussion qui a eu lieu au Conseil de securite, cette affaire a ete considerablement obscureie par l'introduction de questions qui, a mon avis, lui sont etrangeres. Permettez-moi de rappeler au Conseil de seeurite la nature exacte de l'accusation que nous avons portee contre le Gouvernement albanais. On a trouve un champ de mines dans les eaux territoriales a1banaises, a pres de 300 yards de la e8te. Ces mines avaient ete mouillees a une date recente. 11 est vrai que deux membres du ConseiI ont declare que des mines immergees pendant un temps considerable dans l'eau de mer conservcnt leur apparence premiere; mais nous avons des preuves irrefutables que la pose de ces mines est de date recente. Nous avons une eertaine experience en matiere de mines. Selon des renseignements que j'ai contr8Ies, les autorites britanniques ont, depuis la fin de la guerre, drague environ vingt mille mines de toute espece. En tout cas, n'importe quel ecolier vous dira que des objets metalliques immerges dans l'eau de mer se recouvrent progressivement d'une vegetation marine. 11 est tres facile de determiner approximativement la duree de l'imrnersion. J'affirme pouvoir prouver les p<:Jints suivants : 1. Le champ de mines a ete pose six mois au plus avant les incident~ en question. 2. Le champ de mines n'a jamais ete declare ni signaIe. Personne n'a conteste cette affirmation, et personne ne peut le faire, parce qu'aucun preavis ni aucun avertissement n'a ete donne. C'est la un fait admis. I raised the question of the sowing of this mine-field and no amount of talk about the manner of its reaping can, in the least degree, detract from the truth of the point I make that the first link in the chain of events was a breach of the Hague Convention. That breach cannot be annulled, or even excused or condoned, by anything that followed, or by any irregularity of procedure in the sweeping, even if such could be established. Another diversion has been attempted by calling in question the right of innocent passage. But even if, contrary to the great bulk of opinion and generally accepted usage, there is no such right, that cannot for a moment be held to justify the flagrant breach of an existing international convention. A minority opinion challenging this doctrine must not be enforced by the illegal use of high explosives. If anyone wished to challenge the doctrine, there were enough peaceful means at his disposal for establishing what is right. The illegal laying of a mine-field is murder. So far, I cannot understand how any objectively-minded individual can challenge the three points I have just made. Then again, there is no use whatever quoting the statistics on the number of ships blown up by mines since the war. That is a very sad picture. Numerous accidents have occurred owing to floating mines or displaced mines or to ground mines which cannot be swept; or sometimes, unfortunately, owing to disregard of routing instructions. But-and this is the point-I am not aware that any newly-laid moored mine-field has been discovered anywhere except in the Corfu Channel. That-I must repeat it againis the gravamen of this charge. I consider that I have evidence to prove it. Then, we come to the question of guilt. The Soviet representative asked why we accused Albania. The answer is that all these mines were in Albanian waters, only some 300 yards from the shore. Therefore, suspicion must rest upon her first. If she did not lay them, can anyone really believe that they were laid without her knowledge and connivance? I tried to emphasize this point in my opening statement. I showed the degree of vigilance exercised by the Albanian authorities on this coast by day and by night. The Albanian representative has added weight to this argument of mine by producing eight further cases of alleged entry into Albanian waters by Gre.ek and other foreign vessels, both by day and durmg the hours of darkness. It is interesting to note that after detailing these cases-the last of which was said to have Occurred on 30 April 1946-the Albanian representative said: "As a Is it credible in these circumstances that foreign vessels could lay these mines under the nose of the Albanian authorities without the latter knowing anything about it? I say it is not credible. And if the Albanian Government knew about it and if they did not report it, or even issue any warning, then they are accessories to the crime and are as guilty as if they had laid them themselves. That is all that I wish to say at the moment . because it does seem to me, as I said at the beginning, that this case has been greatly obscured. I just wanted to bring out the main point of our charge. . I will not now enter into a discussion of all the points of detail raised by the Albanian representative, the representative of the USSR and the representative of Poland, as I consider it to be my duty to supply all the relevant information and make my observations to the Sub-Committee which has just been appointed, reserving, of course, my right to speak again in the debate which may ensue after the Sub-Committee's report has been received. Mr. HYSNI KAPO (Albania) (translated from French) : I do not wish to reply to Sir Alexander Cadogan now, but I should like to reserve my right to speak at a later meeting. ----rsCe 0 fficia.l Records of the Security Council, Second Year, No. 16. The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. M. HYSNI KApo (Albanie): Je ne desire pas repondre maintenant aux declarations de Sir Alexander Cadogan. J'aimerais cependant me reserver le droit de prendre la parole au cours de la prochaine seance. 1 Voir Proces-verbaux offici~ls du Cons~il de seCllritl, Deuxieme Annee, No 16. La seance est levee a18 h. 30.